An overview of important court decisions affecting workplace rights. Updated weekly.
Select a court circuit from the map below or from this list.
Appeals from federal circuit (intermediate appellate level) courts and original hearing for disputes between states
Decision Date: February 27, 2008
In an Age Discrimination in Employment Act case involving the question of whether Fed Ex courier's filing of an intake questionnaire and affidavit with the EEOC was a "charge" under the Act so as to allow the filing of a civil action, the Court defers to the EEOC's interpretation for the proper test for determining whether a filing is a charge. Specifically, in addition to the information required by the implementing regulations, if a filing is to be deemed a charge it must be reasonably construed as a request for the agency to take remedial action to protect the employee's rights or otherwise settle a dispute between the employer and the employee. In this case, the filings constituted such a charge and the circuit court correctly reversed dismissal of the case.
Decision Date: February 26, 2008
In an age discrimination case brought under 29 U. S. C. section 621 et seq., in which the district court excluded testimony by nonparties alleging discrimination at the hands of supervisors of defendant-company who played no role in the adverse employment decision challenged by plaintiff, a court of appeals decision remanding the matter with instructions to admit the challenged testimony is vacated and remanded where: 1) Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 403 do not make such evidence per se admissible or per se inadmissible; and 2) the circuit court erred in conducting its own analysis of the relevant factors under the Rules, as the inquiry required by those Rules was within the province of the district court in the first instance.
Decision Date: January 22, 2007
In the context of the Westfall Act, which accords federal employees absolute immunity from tort claims arising out of acts undertaken in the course of their official duties, the Attorney General's scope-of-employment certification is conclusive for purposes of removal. Once certification and removal are effected, exclusive competence to adjudicate the case resides in the federal court, and that court may not remand the suit to the state court. Also, Westfall Act certification is proper when a federal officer charged with misconduct asserts, and the Attorney General concludes, that the incident or episode in suit never occurred. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: June 22, 2006
Title VII's anti-retaliation provision does not confine the actions and harms it forbids to those that are related to employment or occur at the workplace. The anti-retaliation provision covers only those employer actions that would have been materially adverse to a reasonable employee or applicant. This requires a retaliation plaintiff to show that the challenged action well might have dissuaded a reasonable worker from making or supporting a charge of discrimination.
Decision Date: June 15, 2006
In the context of bankruptcy law, premiums owed by an employer to a workers' compensation carrier do not fit within 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(5), which accords priorities, among unsecured creditors' claims, for unpaid contributions to "an employee benefit plan."
Decision Date: June 5, 2006
A judgment holding that there was no jurisdiction to consider claims brought by an employee alleging that the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) tested him for drug and alcohol in a nonrandom manner in violation of his constitutional rights and the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) is vacated and remanded for further consideration of issues of jurisdiction and preclusion.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island
Decision Date: March 11, 2008
In a suit alleging gender discrimination and retaliation against a U.S. Marshal, judgment for defendant is vacated and remanded for a new trial where: 1) the district court's finding in a mixed motive discrimination case that there was gender discrimination required it to find liability on the part of the government on any timely claim; 2) the court was also incorrect in its determination that certain evidence could be used only with respect to plaintiff's retaliation claim; and 3) the court incorrectly interpreted and applied the law of retaliation.
Decision Date: February 7, 2008
In an action raising claims of a hostile work environment and retaliation in violation of Title VII and state law, summary judgment for defendants is vacated in part where the district court erred in ruling, as a matter of law, that: 1) town administrator's alleged staring at plaintiff's breasts did not make her workplace atmosphere hostile; 2) plaintiff's transfer to another secretarial position within the town, among other things, after she complained of the administrator's behavior did not amount to a materially adverse employment action; and 3) those actions were not motivated by retaliatory animus.
Decision Date: January 26, 2007
Summary judgment for defendant-employer on age discrimination and overtime claims is affirmed where: 1) one defendant could not show that the reasons offered for his elimination were mere pretext and was an exempt executive for overtime pay purposes; and 2) the other defendant did not make out a prima facie case for discrimination since he did not suffer an adverse employment action. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: January 26, 2007
Dismissal of an insurance company's claim against an injured worker's attorneys for malpractice in pursuing a Federal Tort Claims Act suit on the worker's behalf is affirmed where the Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act does not create a statutory right on the part of an insurance carrier to seek damages against an injured employee's attorneys for legal malpractice in pursuing the employee's claims against a responsible third party. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: January 4, 2007
Summary judgment for defendant-employer in a suit alleging that plaintiff had been fired from his job due to his military service is reversed where the district court incorrectly applied the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act's burden-shifting analysis. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: December 18, 2006
Dismissal of plaintiff's suit challenging his dismissal under the Family and Medical Leave Act is reversed where regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), as interpreted by the DOL, establish that previous periods of employment with an employer count towards satisfaction of the Act's 12-month employment requirement. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: December 4, 2006
Judgment for defendants in a personal injury suit against a textile manufacturer is affirmed where: 1) there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's determination that plaintiff had not laid an adequate foundation for the introduction of OSHA regulations; 2) the court was within its discretion in excluding expert testimony about the applicability of OSHA regulations to defendants; and 3) the court was justified in excluding testimony about industry customs and practices since plaintiff never clearly stated what customs and practices the expert would testify to, and the exclusion did not affect plaintiff's substantial rights.
Decision Date: November 3, 2006
Summary judgment for defendant-employer in an employment discrimination suit in which plaintiff alleged that defendant refused to consider her for re-employment in retaliation for a previous lawsuit she filed against the company is affirmed where plaintiff did not reveal an adverse employment action through a showing that: 1) she applied for a particular position; 2) the position was vacant; 3) she was qualified for the position; and 4) she was not hired for that position.
Decision Date: October 26, 2006
Dismissal of a suit to enforce an arbitral agreement is affirmed where the district court did not err in refusing to apply and enforce the prior arbitral award since the award rested on a factual predicate that differs from the situation underlying the current claims.
Decision Date: October 11, 2006
Denial of judgment as a matter of law for defendants in a case alleging harassment and termination of employment in violation of plaintiff's First Amendment rights is affirmed where: 1) there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to determine that plaintiff was deprived of duties in retaliation against his political affiliation; and 2) defendants had knowledge of the activities and did nothing to prevent them. One defendant's challenge to punitive damages and assertion of qualified immunity is denied where: 1) there was evidence from which the jury could have found that defendant acted with reckless indifference to the foreseeable adverse effect on plaintiffs' rights; and 2) it was unreasonable for defendant to believe that his actions were legal.
Decision Date: September 29, 2006
In an action alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), 29 U.S.C. sections 621-634, summary judgment to defendant employer is reversed where plaintiff's objections to the summary judgment motion pass muster under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b) and Local Rule 72(d).
Decision Date: September 28, 2006
Summary judgment for plaintiff-union in a dispute over the terms of an arbitration decision involving an employee's back wages for an unjustified suspension is affirmed where, despite defendant's procedural forfeiture of its challenge to an adverse clarification of the decision, the challenge was not frivolous and did not justify the award of attorney's fees to the union.
Decision Date: September 20, 2006
Summary judgment for defendants in a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 case alleging political discrimination in termination from government employment is vacated where there was a credibility contest between plaintiffs' and defendants' accounts of the circumstances surrounding the terminations, and a reasonable fact-finder could conclude that plaintiffs had established that political discrimination was a substantial or motivating factor in the loss of their jobs.
Decision Date: September 19, 2006
Reversal of an arbitration award in favor of plaintiff in a suit to recover contributions to a stock purchase plan is vacated and remanded with instructions to confirm the arbitrator's award to plaintiff where the district court's analysis of the merits of the arbitration panel's award was proscribed by the standards of review that apply to a district court's review of arbitration awards.
Decision Date: September 12, 2006
Dismissal of claims remaining after settlement in a suit alleging disability discrimination and retaliation is affirmed where: 1) only economic damages are available in an employment discrimination case under Title II of the ADA; 2) only injunctive relief is available under Title I of the ADA; 3) plaintiff's treatment did not rise to the level of a hostile work environment; and 4) plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case of retaliation.
Decision Date: August 24, 2006
Summary judgment for employer in a disability discrimination case is affirmed where plaintiff was not a "qualified individual with a disability" under the ADA or a "qualified handicapped person" under Massachusetts law.
Decision Date: August 8, 2006
Petition for review of a National Labor Relations Board decision concluding that a union leader was fired for engaging in a protected activity and ordering his reinstatement is denied over petitioner's arguments that: 1) there was no substantial evidence that it knew about defendant's protected activity; and 2) it would have fired defendant for transgressions regardless of his unionizing activities.
Decision Date: August 7, 2006
Judgment for plaintiff in a suit alleging wrongful withholding from retirement plans is affirmed where the district court properly engaged in plenary review in light of the conflict of interest of the plans' trustee, but plaintiff's cross-appeal for attorney's fees and interest is denied where the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying these requests.
Decision Date: August 3, 2006
Judgment in a racial harassment case is affirmed where: 1) the Supreme Court has rejected the argument that a finding of a hostile work environment requires that there be an award of compensatory damages; 2) plaintiff forfeited the issue of nominal damages; 3) plaintiff did not preserve arguments related to award of punitive damages; and 4) plaintiff offered no evidence of pretext to counter defendant's motion for summary judgment on unlawful discharge claim.
Decision Date: June 2, 2006
Order vacating an arbitration award is affirmed where the arbitrator had no authority under the collective bargaining agreement to overturn a hospital's shift assignment policy since it was not plausible for the arbitrator to find that a clause in the agreement was not subject to interpretation.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Connecticut, New York, and Vermont
Decision Date: March 21, 2008
In a Title VII suit instituted by a Catholic priest against a bishop and a diocese alleging racial discrimination in a denial of a promotion and tyhe termination of his employment, dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed where: 1) Hankins v. Lyght, 441 F.3d 96 (2d Cir. 2006), is deemed inapplicable due to defendants' explicit waiver of any defense based on a violation of Religious Freedom Restoration Act; and 2) Title VII is unconstitutional as applied to the case as the nature of plaintiff's employment as an ordained priest precluded his claims against the defendant under the ministerial exception.
Decision Date: December 14, 2006
Dispositive issue arising from dismissal of claim for long-term disability benefits is certified to the New York Court of Appeals as whether New York Insurance Law section 3234(a)(2) means that: 1) a policy may impose a 12-month waiting period during which no benefits will be paid for disability stemming from a pre-existing condition and arising in the first 12 months of coverage; or 2) a policy may lawfully include a permanent absolute bar to coverage of disabilities resulting from pre-existing conditions that trigger disability within the first twelve months of the employee's coverage.
[Sign-in required.]
[Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: December 5, 2006
Dismissal of Title VII employment discrimination claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, based on plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies and rejection of equitable principles to excuse such failure, is vacated as the district court erred in failing to consider all of the unique circumstances of the case.
Decision Date: November 14, 2006
Award of lost earnings to plaintiff undocumented alien, calculated partially by reference to U.S. pay rates as compensation for disabling personal injuries attributable to defendants' violation of New York Labor Law section 240(1), and apportioned among defendants and plaintiff's direct employer based on relative negligence, is affirmed over claim that federal immigration law, as articulated in the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 necessarily precluded any damages award under New York law that compensated an undocumented worker for lost earnings, at least to the extent such earnings were based on pay rates in the U.S. rather than in the worker's native country.
Decision Date: November 6, 2006
Motion to dismiss for lack of appellate jurisdiction on ground that the judgment was not final is denied where the district court's decision constituted a final judgment and, therefore, the court has jurisdiction.
Decision Date: October 19, 2006
Appeal from order awarding attorney fees to plaintiff after summary judgment holding defendant liable under ERISA is dismissed as the district court has yet to exercise its discretion to determine whether fees or costs will be awarded at all.
Decision Date: October 19, 2006
Dismissal of plaintiff's ERISA claim that she was improperly denied long-term disability benefits is vacated in part where defendant-plan administrator failed to conduct a full and fair review of all of the circumstances relevant to plaintiff’s claim of disability.
Decision Date: September 26, 2006
Denial of individual defendants' motion for qualified immunity and denial of defendant municipality's motion for summary judgment, in action alleging a chief of police and commission conspired to retaliate against officers for speaking out against a claimed pattern of serious misconduct and cover-ups, in violation of plaintiffs' First Amendment and Equal Protection rights, is reversed as to denial of motion to dismiss equal protection claims against municipal defendants, but is otherwise affirmed.
Decision Date: September 21, 2006
Summary judgment for defendants, in action brought by public school employee unions seeking injunction against wage freeze, is affirmed as the the Buffalo fiscal stability authority act, which authorized a wage and hiring freeze, constitutes neither a Contracts Clause nor Takings Clause violation.
Decision Date: September 14, 2006
Summary judgment for defendants on claim that defendants denied plaintiff professor emeritus status in retaliation for speech related to a matter of public concern is affirmed as denial of such status is not an adverse action since the benefits of such status carry little or no value and their deprivation therefore may be classified as de minimis.
Decision Date: September 5, 2006
Denial of application for declaratory and injunctive relief against the enforcement of Exchange Act Rule 14a-8(i)(8) is reversed as a shareholder proposal that seeks to amend the corporate bylaws to establish a procedure by which shareholder-nominated candidates may be included on the corporate ballot does not relate to an election within the meaning of the Rule and therefore cannot be excluded from corporate proxy materials under that regulation.
Decision Date: August 28, 2006
Order granting an attorney's charging lien is reversed to the extent it was improperly awarded, however, orders making plaintiff liable to reimburse her former attorneys for expenses and declining plaintiff's claim for return of her retainer payments are affirmed.
Decision Date: August 25, 2006
Summary judgment for plaintiff and order subordinating defendant's claim for damages against the debtor is affirmed as the claim of a former executive employee of the debtor that is based on the debtor's failure to issue common stock to the executive in exchange for his stock in another company, as provided by a termination agreement, constitutes a claim "arising from" the purchase of the debtor's stock within the meaning and purpose of 11 U.S.C. section 510(b).
Decision Date: August 23, 2006
Summary judgment for defendants on plaintiff's claims of retaliatory transfer in violation of Title VII and the ADEA is vacated in light of Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 126 16 S. Ct. 2405 (2006), as plaintiff adduced evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the changes in his employment were materially adverse.
Decision Date: August 21, 2006
Summary judgment for defendants on breach-of-contract claim is affirmed where plaintiff has failed to satisfy the burden necessary to bring this claim to trial, however, conversion claim prompts certification of the following question to the New York Court of Appeals: Is a claim of conversion cognizable for electronic data?
Decision Date: August 15, 2006
Dismissal of plaintiff's claims of racial discrimination, with prejudice, on the ground that 42 U.S.C. section 1981 does not prohibit discriminatory conduct occurring while a plaintiff is outside the jurisdiction of the U.S., is vacated to the extent it included plaintiff's claims based on allegedly discriminatory actions his employer took against him while he was in the U.S.
Decision Date: August 14, 2006
On remand from U.S. Supreme Court, denial of post-verdict motion by defendants seeking judgment as a matter of law as to disparate-impact claims under ADEA and the state law, is vacated where plaintiffs have failed to carry their burden of demonstrating that the challenged employment practice was unreasonable.
Long Island Head Start Child Developmental Servs., Inc. vs National Labor Relations Bd. (No. 05-5723)
Decision Date: August 9, 2006
Respondent's order concluding that petitioner violated its obligation to bargain in good faith when it unilaterally changed its employees' health insurance carrier is vacated where respondent provided no reasoned basis for its decision.
Decision Date: July 20, 2006
Denial of plaintiff's application for post-Offer of Judgment attorneys' fees pursuant to Rule 68, Fed. R. Civ. P., and the calculation of his fee award, are reversed to the extent the magistrate judge awarded plaintiff only pre-Offer attorneys' fees based on the conclusion that the equitable relief obtained had no significant value and that the final monetary award was less than the Offer.
Decision Date: July 13, 2006
Dismissal of claims alleging employment discrimination and deprivation of liberty and property without due process of law is affirmed as the federal civil complaint is time-barred and the ADEA and Due Process claims lack merit.
Decision Date: July 11, 2006
Appeal from order of remand to claims administrator for reconsidertion of plaintiff's eligibility for long-term disability benefits is dismissed as the district court's order remanding the claim is not a final judgment.
Decision Date: July 10, 2006
Denial of motion to stay arbitration is affirmed over claim that mere continuation of employment, without more, is insufficient for a court to imply renewal of an agreement to arbitrate in an expired employment contract.
Decision Date: June 29, 2006
In a libel action brought by a terminated broker, claiming that statements made on an NASD employee termination form (Form U-5) are subject to an absolute privilege under New York law, the following question is certified to the New York Court of Appeals: Are statements made by an employer on a Form U-5 subject to an absolute or a qualified privilege?
Decision Date: June 27, 2006
An employee benefit plan participant is excused, under 29 C.F.R. section 2560.503-1(l), from exhausting the administrative remedies of a claims procedure that was adopted by his plan only after he had already brought an ERISA action to recover benefits.
Decision Date: June 21, 2006
Judgment holding defendants liable for causing monetary losses to defendant fund and permanently enjoining them from serving as fiduciaries or service providers to any employee benefit plan is affirmed over claims that the district court erred in: 1) concluding defendant breached her fiduciary duties under ERISA by failing to protect the Fund from embezzlement by a known embezzler; 2) finding that any breach by defendant caused the Fund injury; and 3) abusing its discretion in permanently barring defendant from serving as an ERISA fiduciary.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Virgin Islands
Decision Date: April 14, 2008
Denial of a motion to compel arbitration on grounds that the arbitration clause in an employment agreement was unconscionable and employer had waived its right to compel arbitration is vacated and remanded where: 1) employee was highly-educated with various employment opportunities, and accepted an employment offer without first examining the terms of an underlying employment contract which he signed; and 2) in light of the absence of findings as to prejudice, the district court should consider and make findings as to all relevant factors of demonstrating prejudice.
Decision Date: December 12, 2007
In an action brought by a former service manager against a limousine company alleging that plaintiff's termination violated the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and state laws, summary judgment for defendant is reversed in part where: 1) based on the factual record as related by plaintiff, defendant had sufficient notice of his need for leave to satisfy the notice requirements of the FMLA; and 2) there was sufficient information on plaintiff's medical condition to create an issue for the jury on his disability under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
Decision Date: February 7, 2007
In a case involving a claim of disability discrimination brought by mentally disabled plaintiff under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, summary judgment for defendant-USPS is reversed where substantial evidence supported plaintiff's argument that a doctor's letter, which formed the basis for adverse summary judgment, was only procured under duress and as a result of a calculated attempt to force similarly situated disabled employees to take permanent disability retirement. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: January 24, 2007
Denial of an application for Child's Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income payments, alleging disability from birth based on morbid obesity with resultant physical ailments, is reversed where although an ALJ properly conducted steps two and three of the benefit-entitlement process, he erred in step five by relying on the Medical-Vocational Guidelines in the presence of applicant's nonexertional limitations. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: December 19, 2006
In the context of the qualification prong of a prima facie case of discrimination under Title VII, an employer that hires someone who lacks a job posting's objective qualifications cannot point to the absence of those same qualifications in another applicant as a basis for declining to hire that second applicant. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: November 22, 2006
In an appeal arising from a discrimination action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against a former employer, orders vacating hearing-impaired plaintiff's back pay award and reducing her award of attorney's fees are affirmed where: 1) the district court correctly ruled that back pay is an equitable remedy and correctly vacated the back pay award; and 2) did not abuse its discretion in reducing her attorney's fees award after finding that she had limited success at trial.
Decision Date: October 20, 2006
In a case arising out of a dispute over whether employees divested in connection with a merger between Mobil Corporation and Exxon Corporation are entitled to severance benefits, a judgment in favor of plaintiffs on a breach of contract claim is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in characterizing an initial summary plan description (SPD) as a unilateral contract the terms of which became fixed as the employees performed; 2) the starting point for plaintiffs’ claim was ERISA, not the common law of contracts; 3) under that framework, plaintiffs’ rights to benefits under the initial SPD never became due; and 4) the plan documents that were in effect when plaintiffs’ claim to benefits would have accrued clearly established that they are ineligible for severance.
Decision Date: September 18, 2006
In a challenge to a city's diversity policy under which plaintiffs-firefighters were involuntarily transferred or denied requests to transfer between fire companies, judgment for defendants, a city and officials, is reversed where the city could not constitutionally employ a race-based transfer and assignment policy when any racial imbalance in the companies was not the result of past intentional discrimination by the city.
Decision Date: September 6, 2006
The circuit court adopts the "ministerial exception" doctrine and holds that it applies to bar any claim, the resolution of which would limit a religious institution's right to choose who will perform particular spiritual functions.
Decision Date: August 28, 2006
Summary judgment for defendants on civil RICO, ERISA, and state law claims brought by physicians and their professional corporations who purchased life insurance through Voluntary Employee Beneficiary Associations (VEBAs), involving misrepresented potential tax benefits of VEBAs, is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in allowing defendants to plead statute of limitations defenses, even though they hadn't done so in their initial answers; 2) federal and state RICO, ERISA, and state law claims were barred by the applicable statutes of limitations; and 3) and a state Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) did not apply.
Decision Date: August 24, 2006
Summary judgment for defendant-employer on a Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) claim is affirmed where it did not illegally interfere with a former employee's FMLA rights when, upon his return from short-term disability FMLA leave, it did not award him a full annual bonus payment under its Partnership Plan, but instead awarded him a payment prorated on the basis of the time he was absent.
Decision Date: August 17, 2006
Summary judgment for a union in a suit seeking to compel arbitration of three grievances relating to overtime is reversed where the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement at issue was narrow and the district court erred by applying the presumption of arbitrability.
Decision Date: August 16, 2006
In the context of asserting or contesting diversity of citizenship for jurisdiction, the burden of proof on a party trying to establish a change of domicile is the preponderance of the evidence standard.
Decision Date: August 14, 2006
Adverse judgment against union members who sued a union for numerous violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) is reversed where: 1) the district court erred in abstaining from ruling on a claim that an article of the union constitution was overbroad and thus violated their free speech rights; 2) a failure to provide a plaintiff with an impartial hearing committee constituted a violation of section 101(a)(5) of the LMRDA; and 3) the District Court erred in finding that the union was in compliance with section 105 of the LMRDA, which requires that union members be made aware of provisions of the LMRDA.
Decision Date: August 4, 2006
A proposed class representative is neither typical nor adequate if the representative is subject to a unique defense that is likely to become a major focus of the litigation.
Decision Date: August 3, 2006
Federal Reserve Act section 341 (Fifth), as impliedly amended by the ADA and 12 U.S.C. section 1831j, preempts any state employment law that goes beyond the remedies and protections provided by those federal laws. A district court's refusal to find plaintiff's state law employment claims preempted by the Federal Reserve Act is reversed since New Jersey’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act (CEPA) and Law Against Discrimination (LAD) impose substantive and procedural burdens well beyond those imposed by federal law, and thereby frustrate Congressional intent to provide the Federal Reserve Banks with relatively unfettered employment discretion.
Decision Date: August 2, 2006
In a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit brought by a corrections officer and his wife against a county and employees responsible for the operation of a correctional facility, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where plaintiffs' claims related to a failure to remedy conditions at a jail, and thus, they failed to state a cognizable substantive due process claim.
Decision Date: July 26, 2006
In a case involving allegations that a borough mayor's campaign of harassment, defamation and retaliation deprived an employee of his job and damaged his reputation and ability to earn a living, dismissal of plaintiff's complaint in its entirety is reversed in part as to: 1) a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 "stigma-plus" due process claim against the mayor to the extent the claim sought a name clearing hearing; 2) a "stigma-plus" due process claim against the borough; 3) First Amendment retaliation claims; and 4) Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and state law claims against the borough.
Decision Date: July 20, 2006
Summary judgment for an employer, a chicken processing company, on employees' claims for unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FSLA) is reversed where there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether "crew leaders" were either responsible for hiring and firing or their recommendations on these issues were given "particular weight" such that they may fall under the executive exemption to the requirements of the FSLA.
Decision Date: July 10, 2006
Dismissal of plaintiffs' ERISA claims alleging breach of fiduciary duties by a plan administrator is affirmed where, although appellants may have made retirement decisions based on a belief that their retirement medical benefits would continue for their lifetimes, the district court properly determined that they did not have statutory standing to bring the action.
Decision Date: June 30, 2006
Title VII and its accompanying regulations require a plaintiff bringing employment discrimination claims to verify her "charge" before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), before an employer receives notice of, or is required to respond to, the charge. However, the verification requirement is not jurisdictional, and where an employer responds to the merits of a charge without raising the plaintiff's failure to verify her charge before the EEOC, it has waived its right to assert that defense in later federal court proceedings.
Decision Date: June 7, 2006
In a case involving the firing of a private Catholic school teacher after she signed her name to a pro-choice advertisement in a newspaper, grant of defendants' motions to dismiss is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted with respect to two counts because her signing the pro-choice advertisement was not protected conduct under Title VII's opposition clause; and 2) her third count failed as Congress has not clearly expressed an affirmative intent to apply Title VII to a claim against a religious employer in the present context.
Decision Date: December 31, 1969
The Commissioner of Internal Revenue extended, until February 28, 2002, the deadline for pension plans to amend their present-value calculations to switch from using the rate published by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation to using the 30-year Treasury rate.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia
Decision Date: December 13, 2006
In case seeking equitable relief under ERISA for breach of fiduciary duties by engaging in improper claims procedures to deny claims for long-term disability, judgment on the pleadings for defendant is affirmed, because adequate relief for plaintiff is available through review of individual benefits claim under 29 U.S.C. section 1132(a)(1)(B) and relief under section 1132(a)(3) will not lie. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: December 4, 2006
Summary judgment for plaintiff, who sued defendant pension plan for denying him service credit on his pension for years when his employer was not a signatory to a collective bargaining, is reversed as the district court erred in importing imputed liability provisions from the Coal Act, which relates to retiree health benefits and does not apply to pension benefits.
Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Local 2, Office Professional Employees Int'l Union (No. 04-2274)
Decision Date: October 4, 2006
Holding that petitioner's closing an employee cafeteria amounted to an arbitrable withdrawal of a benefit of employment under two applicable agreements, a multi-state Compact creating the petitioner authority, and a collective bargaining agreement between the petitioner and respondent, is affirmed as the cafeteria constituted an employment benefit as defined by the two governing instruments.
Decision Date: September 5, 2006
Reversal of defendant\'s decision to deny plaintiff long term disability benefits under an ERISA plan is affirmed where defendant did not act reasonably in denying plaintiff\'s claim.
Decision Date: August 28, 2006
Judgment for defendants after bench trial, on claims of unpaid overtime under FLSA by plaintiff agents - members of the security detail for Saudi Prince Faisal bin Turki bin Nasser Al-Saud - is vacated as to defendant company as plaintiffs were employees, and not independent contractors as found by the district court.
Decision Date: August 14, 2006
Dismissal of Title VII complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff did not complain of an actual hostile work environment; 2) plaintiff could not reasonably have believed he was complaining of a hostile work environment; and 3) remaining counts of the complaint are grounded essentially on the same core allegations that support plaintiff's Title VII claim or contain no supporting allegations.
Decision Date: August 8, 2006
Award of benefits to respondent under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. sections 901-945, is vacated on the ground that, in rejecting petitioner's statute of limitations defense, the Benefits Review Board relied upon an invalid ground — i.e., that petitioner failed to offer proof that respondent received written notice that he was totally disabled due to pneumoconiosis more than three years before he filed his black lung claim.
Decision Date: August 7, 2006
Dismissal of suit as time-barred, pursuant to a finding that an amended complaint naming new defendants for first time did not relate back to original complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c)(3), is affirmed over a claim that new defendants were properly substituted for mistakenly-named defendant and effectuated with service within a court-granted extension under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
Decision Date: July 24, 2006
Summary judgment in favor of defendant, in breach of contract action against defendant for millions in commissions allegedly earned by plaintiff under software sales incentive plan, is affirmed as the parties had never entered into a binding contract since there had never been a meeting of the minds as to the shape, extent, and firmness of the commission arrangement.
Decision Date: July 13, 2006
Award of black lung benefits to respondent under the Federal Coal Mine Health & Safety Act of 1969 is affirmed over claims that: 1) respondent's second claim for benefits was untimely; 2) the ALJ was biased against petitioner and coal mine companies in general; 3) the ALJ abused its discretion in making certain discovery and evidentiary rulings; and (4) the ALJ improperly credited the opinions of experts in awarding benefits to respondent.
Decision Date: July 11, 2006
Reversal of Social Security Administration's denial of claim for disability benefits, based on Sickle Cell Disease, is affirmed where the SSA ALJ applied an improper standard to disregard the treating physician's opinion that plaintiff was fully disabled.
Decision Date: June 28, 2006
Preliminary injunction requiring mining company to permit the United Mine Workers of America to investigate the Sago Mine explosion is upheld where: 1) defendant's insufficient notice argument was waived, and notice was actually sufficient; 2) the UMWA's uncontested designation of representation for two anonymous miners supported the injunction; 3) no legal limitation exists in the statute or regulations regarding who may represent miners; and 4) the injunction does not violate the mine's common law property rights.
Decision Date: June 22, 2006
Judgment against defendant plan fiduciaries, resulting in removal as fiduciaries of plan and order for remuneration for losses resulting from misconduct, is affirmed where defendants' actions, including attempts to raid plan's assets and deprive employees of vested benefits, constitute an egregious misuse of authority that justified the remedies.
Decision Date: June 22, 2006
Summary judgment in favor of defendant, in case alleging discrimination, wrongful termination, and retaliation in violation of the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, is affirmed as the undisputed evidence demonstrates that defendant did not improperly deny plaintiff reemployment rights or a benefit of employment, and defendant dismissed plaintiff for cause, and did not retaliate against her in violation of USERRA.
Decision Date: June 19, 2006
Judgment on the pleadings in favor of defendants, in case where plaintiff relied on two provisions of ERISA in alleging breach of fiduciary duty for failing to implement chosen investment strategy for employee retirement account, is affirmed as complaint does not request a form of relief available under ERISA.
Appeals from federal district (trial level) courts in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas
Decision Date: January 2, 2008
A punitive damages award under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. section 1981 need not be accompanied by compensatory damages.
Decision Date: December 12, 2007
In an action claiming that defendant-sheriff violated plaintiff's rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), judgment pursuant a jury verdict for plaintiff is affirmed where: 1) FMLA regulations requiring employers to provide individualized notice to employees when the employers designate a period of leave as FMLA leave are valid as enforced in this case; 2) defendant waived his right to appeal the jury's conclusion that his failure to comply with the regulations caused plaintiff prejudice; and 3) there was no abuse of discretion in awarding plaintiff two years of front pay.
Decision Date: December 18, 2006
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), wages earned after termination offset lost wage damages. A judgment and award of damages to plaintiffs in an FLSA suit, who claimed they were discharged for filing complaints for unpaid wages, is affirmed over plaintiffs' claims of error where the district court properly applied the law in offsetting their damage award by wages they earned after their employment was terminated. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: December 7, 2006
In a suit brought under 42 U.S.C. section 1983, alleging that defendant-city terminated plaintiff from his position as Chief of Police in violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where, contrary to the lower court's conclusion that plaintiff lacked a constitutionally-protected property interest in further employment with the police department, a portion of the city charter created such a constitutionally-protected property interest. However, claims against the city manager are dismissed based on qualified immunity. [Sign-in required.]
Decision Date: November 22, 2006
In the context of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), which criminalizes various fraudulent or damaging activities related to the use of computers, a civil action may be maintained under section 1030(a)(4) of the CFAA if the violative conduct involves any of the factors listed under section 1030(a)(5)(B).
Decision Date: October 31, 2006
Adverse summary judgment against plaintiffs on their claims of employment discrimination and unlawful retaliation by the City of Fort Worth is reversed in part as to the unlawful discrimination claims where the district court abused its discretion: 1) by unfiling plaintiffs' first Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) motion as a sanction for violation of a pretrial order prohibiting motions signed by a law firm; 2) in finding a second motion untimely; and 3) when it determined, with respect to the second motion, that even had it been timely filed, it would have been meritless.
Decision Date: October 5, 2006
A judgment for plaintiffs in a workplace First Amendment case is reversed where, under the balancing test of Pickering v. Bd. of Educ., the interest of defendant-hospital in promoting the efficiency of the public service it performs by means of its uniform non-adornment policy outweighs the interest of its Integrated Services employees such as plaintiff in wearing a "Union Yes" button on their uniforms while on duty at the hospital.
Decision Date: October 3, 2006
Dismissal of a battery action against the former employer of a medical worker who developed an allergy to latex gloves is affirmed where the action was improperly joined to the worker's product liability suit against the glove manufacturer since joinder of a non-diverse party is improper if there is no reasonable basis to predict that the plaintiff might be able to recover against that party.
Decision Date: September 13, 2006
Public employees are subject to individual liability under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). In a suit alleging, inter alia, wrongful termination for plaintiff's exercising her First Amendment rights and taking leave under the FMLA, denial of summary judgment for defendant is reversed in part as to the FMLA claim where defendant was entitled to qualified immunity on that claim because it was not clearly established that public employees are subject to individual liability under the FMLA when defendant terminated plaintiff's employment.
Decision Date: September 12, 2006
In a insurance bad faith and contract suit arising from plaintiff-former employee's motor vehicle accident and defendants' refusal to cover, indemnify or defend plaintiff, summary judgment for defendants is reversed where genuine issues of material fact remained as to whether the employee acted within the permissive use authorized by his employer, Goodyear Tires, when he fell asleep at the wheel of a company truck.
Decision Date: September 5, 2006
In a dispute stemming from the Enron collapse and centering around the interpretation of two fiduciary liability insurance policies, denial of Kenneth Lay's wife's and Jeffrey Skilling's motion to compel arbitration and to stay an interpleader action pending arbitration is affirmed where the only present dispute was one among the insureds over the proper allocation of interpleaded funds, and the scope of an arbitration clause did not encompass such a dispute.
Decision Date: August 31, 2006
Dismissal of a contractor's First Amendment retaliation claim against a city is vacated where: 1) the district court erred in concluding that plaintiff failed to allege that a prior lawsuit was a matter of "public concern in the community" due to the lawsuit's location relative to that of the retaliation; 2) plaintiff's petition was sufficient to put the city on notice that its prior suit involved matters of public concern; and 3) a contractor is not required to have a prior relationship with a governmental entity before bei